p.1 #1 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
I was reading a thread recently where someone claimed the 70-200/2.8 Z with the 2x tc at 400 mm is as sharp as the 100-500 at 400. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
p.1 #2 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
There is an extensive review from Gordon Laing/Cameralabs and a few other videos on YT comparing the both.
From my (limited) experience from using a 2x extender on the Sony 70-200 f2.8 GMII: no, they are not on the same level. Especially when it comes to using it on the long end.
I’ve used the 100-500 extensively on the last safari, and it’s incredibly sharp. Works well with the 1.4x extender, considering that you cannot use anything shorter than 300 (420) mm of focal length, what is a bummer.
Other then that, the 100-500 is one of the best WL Zoom lenses on the market.
p.1 #3 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
I had the 100-500 a few years ago, so I didn't have it at the same time with the 70-200 Z. After I got rid of the 100-500, I also used the RF 100-400 for a couple years, and pound for pound, that lens is great.
Once I got the 70-200 Z however I got rid of the 100-400 and haven't looked back. I don't know for sure if the 70-200 Z is as good or better than the 100-500, but it is amazingly sharp in its native range and even still with both the 1.4X and 2X its really good. I would say it's very close to the 100-500 with the extenders and sharper without. I use it in all three configurations depending what I need out of it, and I don't have any complaints. If you don't need more than a 400mm F5.6, then I think it is a real viable option. My primary use is kids sports though, so YMMV (for indoors its primarily in the native 70-200mm range but sometimes with the 1.4X, and outdoors primarily with the 1.4X or 2.0X depending on what I need and lighting).
p.1 #4 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
That Gordon Laing review is excellent indeed.
I think the take away is that using the 2x extender, the 70-200 at 400 is about as sharp as the 100-500 at 400mm. In the corners the 100-500 is a bit sharper.
Standalone without extenders of course the 70-200 is very sharp.
The 100-500 is very good, but not incredibly sharp. Thats what I’d call the 400 2.8 wide open at 400mm (I have both lenses so I can compare). So it depends on your reference.
Right now I’m thinking of replacing my original rf 70-200 with a Z version and sell the 100-500 since I already have both extenders and don’t use the 100-500 that much (even on wildlife trips I tend to prefer the 70-200 + 400mm + extenders). Also for my line of job (events) the Z should be great where I can make at a bit longer when needed with the 1.4 extender
